In spite of two strong and clear court rulings against them, accusing them of bargaining in bad faith, the B.C. Liberals still appear unwilling to seek some form of solution. It is my opinion that they have goaded the teachers into a position where they have no alternative but to strike. Unproductive negotiations aggravated by partial lockout and a unilateral 10 per cent rollback in salaries are all provocations.
The appearance is that the B.C. Liberals are acting like schoolyard bullies.
A teacher strike can never be an effective process. If an orchardist were to suffer a strike of fruit-pickers, fruit would not be harvested, would rot and be lost forever, so both the employer and the employees would lose; they would then be under pressure to settle.
In the case of a public-service strike, specifically now the teachers, the students lose most of all, the teachers also lose and the employer — the Ministry of Education — saves money every day (estimated at $210 million so far in this dispute). The government has nothing to lose and much to gain by a strike.
The lingering and litigious nature of these negotiations is a war of attrition. The teachers are financially and emotionally exhausted.
There is only one way of resolving the situation in a fair and democratic society — that is by independent binding arbitration. It is obvious at the moment that the teachers and the Liberal government are deeply entrenched in their respective positions. Both think that they are right. Each needs to be given the opportunity to present their case to an arbitrator who should then be able to make an independent decision, bearing in mind the needs of the students, the affordability to the province and the duties and responsibilities of teachers.
The problem is that the government has already demonstrated that it will not be bound by binding arbitration.
In 2001, there was an excellent binding arbitration with reference to physicians in this province. The arbitrator, former B.C. chief justice Allan MacEachern, made some outstanding creative suggestions which I think would have enhanced and helped family practice in B.C. This was rejected outright during the near-anarchy in 2001-02 of torn-up contracts, to be replaced by a more expensive and less productive fee schedule for delivery of family medicine.
In coming to his decision, McEachern stated that if one wanted to own a racehorse, the cost of food, stabling, veterinary bills and insurance must be taken into consideration, and these should not be borne entirely by the physicians. Does the same argument not apply to the teachers?
The future prosperity of Canada depends on a well-educated younger generation, and this cannot be achieved inexpensively. Students need to graduate with a well-rounded education delivered by a secure and healthy teaching staff who have some control over their working conditions and those of their students.
This is not possible under the present contentious atmosphere. The graduates of 2014 have been badly served — as have, in fact, all the students over the past 12 years.
Both parties need to grow up. They need to teach students the real lessons of life.
• The rule of law still prevails in Canada.
• The decisions of the Court must be respected and not treated like a lucky dip.
• A signed contract cannot be violated or terminated without mutual consent — on that relies the stability of commerce and business.
• Universal free education was hard-earned in the last century and is an invaluable asset.
In view of the delay engendered by the Liberal administration going back to the court system for the third time, I think that the bare minimum would be for both parties to put negotiations on ice until the Court of Appeal ruling is decided. How can meaningful negotiations proceed with this overwhelming uncertainty hanging over both parties?
Like the orchardist’s fruit, lost education will be lost forever; British Columbia cannot afford this.
Dr. Chris Pengilly is a family physician in Saanich.
